Ship of Fools: More Time to Edit

Thread: More Time to Edit Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025594

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

Folks, I'm ON DIAL UP--NOT DSL--and I'm subject to slow-downs, breaks in service, blocking, stalling, phone-calls, interruptions, and et cetera.

Two minutes doesn't give me sufficient time to consider, reverse my course, go back and edit anything I might want to add new thoughts to.

Please increase the edit time to at least 5 minutes.

Thank you.
Emily

Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :

Consider openning a text editor, formulating thoughts there and copy/paste in.

Consider the preview feature.

About dial-up, I use this weekly, though not everyday. The above works.

Posted by Sine Nomine (# 66) on :

Oh Pyx_e, Emily has a question for you...

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Edit time is one of those things that is hard to get the balance right, and does not suit every poster to the same degree. More edit time allows more convenience but also allows more abuse, while less edit time drives healthier social dynamics but causes more individual frustrations. For most of the history of our use of the current software, the edit time was set at 2 minutes by the smartest and wisest person on the Ship, and it seems to work pretty well. Not so very long ago, we tried experimenting with different edit times to see what effects there would be - and the consensus again seemed to favour 2 minutes.

So, we're at 2 minutes editing time, and it's unlikely to change.

If it were entirely up to me, there would be no editing of posts whatsoever. Simply because my philosophical stance is that there are no completely honest modes of communication which involve being able to un-say things. Luckily for us all, most of my Adminly peers have a more forgiving position.

-RooK
Admin

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

For me, at least, editing isn't a chance to un-say something - I'm of the opinion that if you said it, you own it - but a chance to fix obvious grammatical/spelling errors, or add clarification where I realize my brain moved faster than my fingers did. (Which happens often; I'm not much of a typist, frankly.)

That said, the 2 minute period seems to work out OK. I agree with no_prophet about the text editor and preview post - they're a good method of making sure you get it right (most of the time).

Posted by Og, King of Bashan (# 9562) on :

Is it your brain moving faster than your fingers or your finger (the "add reply" clicking finger in particular) moving faster than your brain? I'm sure most of us have experienced the later a few times.

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

More the former - I sometimes start one sentence and am on to the next one mentally before I can finish typing it out.

Some of the latter too, though - we all do that one on occasion. [Biased]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Og, King of Bashan: Is it your brain moving faster than your fingers

This happens to me sometimes. I think it has to do with typing in English too. This means that it takes a bit longer for me to type things, and then my mind is already thinking about another part of my post, which causes mistakes.

Usually I let these mistakes be, I only try to edit them if they make part of the post incomprehensible.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

I'm on dial-up, too, and my connection often drops or goes into limbo. That means that my posts often disappear before I actually post them.

I've gotten into the habit of periodically right-clicking in the post as I type it, then doing Select All, then Copy. This sends the current version to the clipboard. If the connection burps, I can just paste the copy in and try again.

Lately, though, I've been trying something else. I've got an ongoing file that I open in Notepad. I paste copies there, as I work. I save them there, and just keep adding on to the file. It works.

That having been said, I wouldn't mind having a 3 minute edit, instead of 2... Would that cause any problems for the system and/or the H/As?

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

I agree it isn't always sufficient for dial-up, which I used to use, but there is as you say always Notepad, or Word which has the advantage of checking your spelling. And there's Preview Post so you can see how it looks before you send it. So there's plenty of time for reflection, revision and so on offline, before you commit your words to print.

Dialup is increasingly a struggle these days as most pages are designed for broadband users and come with scripts and a whole clutter of images. I found the way to make dialup work more quickly was to turn images off and use the "text only" mode by default. It wasn't pretty, but it did save time and money. On the rare occasions when my broadband connection is down for an extended period I do have a backup dialup connection and that's how I handle it.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sine Nomine:
Oh Pyx_e, Emily has a question for you...

Perhaps (from a sense of irony) my dying words could be "Five minutes more not two." To which my beloved 18 year old, sixth wife will answer "But you will only abuse those extra minutes."

Fly Safe, Pyx_e

p.s. It was a joke, it was only ever meant to be a joke, no kittens died, the world did not stop spinning....

p.p.s Emily write your posts in Word first, or become a Christian and have God bless you with broardband.

edited because I can.

[ 15. June 2013, 09:28: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

Lately, though, I've been trying something else. I've got an ongoing file that I open in Notepad. I paste copies there, as I work.

That's what I do for all but the smallest posts (like this one) here or anywhere else. Email too (I am far too short-tempered to survive much contact with the evil that is Microshite Outlook)

Well, not Notepad, other editors, usually Textpad or Textwrangler, but the principals the same.

However it doesn't help much with getting spelling and grammar right. Because as eny fule kno the Iron Law of Proofreading is that it doesn't look like what it looks like until its printed. Or posted in this case. Errors that are completely invisible in the text editor, or even preview post, stand out a mile when you see them in their final published state.

(There are probably all sorts of plausible pop-psychological reasons for this. We write sentences and words but proofreaders must read words and letters. We know what we have written and until we see it in a different context we don't see what it looks like to someone else. And not even then)

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

p.s. It was a joke, it was only ever meant to be a joke, no kittens died, the world did not stop spinning....

Since we're dancing this dance again, here's what frustrates me- I never saw the original post. I only say the edit. Mass freakout on the boards, and I missed the best part.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

You're ahead of me. I totally regret never having seen either!

Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :

quote:
Originally posted by jbohn:
More the former - I sometimes start one sentence and am on to the next one mentally before I can finish typing it out.

Some of the latter too, though - we all do that one on occasion.

This happens to me all the time.

Also, After-thoughts.

Sometimes, however, it takes an extended time for me to resolve what I said ... as when ... I mixed up my screen name and given name.

Finally!--I now have figured out what I WOULD HAVE USED for a screen-name, had I been focused adequately on just that task: 45 87 99.

That's a prime number the function of which is to revise reality.

But I'm stuck with, what I put in the blank at first. Oh well.

Emily

[ 15. June 2013, 22:41: Message edited by: Emily Windsor-Cragg ]

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Finally!--I now have figured out what I WOULD HAVE USED for a screen-name, had I been focused adequately on just that task: 45 87 99.

That's a prime number the function of which is to revise reality.

Er, 458799 = 3x11x13903. I guess reality has been revised to make that a prime number?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:

But I'm stuck with, what I put in the blank at first. Oh well.

Emily

I agree you are now, but you had an Admin expressing great willingness to help you with a name change the first couple days you were here, and you declined to grant the permission necessary to do so. If you are stuck, it's because you wouldn't take help when it was offered.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

p.s. It was a joke, it was only ever meant to be a joke, no kittens died, the world did not stop spinning....

Since we're dancing this dance again, here's what frustrates me- I never saw the original post. I only say the edit. Mass freakout on the boards, and I missed the best part.

Timing ..........

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:

quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Finally!--I now have figured out what I WOULD HAVE USED for a screen-name, had I been focused adequately on just that task: 45 87 99.

That's a prime number the function of which is to revise reality.
Er, 458799 = 3x11x13903. I guess reality has been revised to make that a prime number?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I was puzzled when I came here, that there was any restriction on editing. What's the point? So that people don't dishonestly go back and change a post?

Well, you can suspend them for that. I guess that's more work for the mods.

In actual practice, I think it's pretty rare, as people will notice it, and how.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Only if hosts are on here all the time and they are not. Otherwise it can quite easily turn into a "he says" "she says" situation. To be able to enforce discipline retrospectively in a text based media you need a certain fixture of the text. For that reason there are some here who would prefer no edit ability at all.

It is a compromise.

Jengie

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Fairy nuff, I suppose. I've worked as a mod, with unrestricted editing, and there seemed to be two kinds of events with this - when somebody had noticed somebody else editing dishonestly, and when nobody did. In the first case, if there was proof (i.e. somebody had copied to their own post), they were suspended. If no proof, they were under intense suspicion. If nobody had noticed anyway, who cares. But yes, it's more work for the mods.

I get caught by it, as I often think of another paragraph later. Well, I can just do another post.

Posted by MarsmanTJ (# 8689) on :

It's one of the few downsides of ultimatebb. In other software like vBulletin and phpBB (neither of which I like close to as much as ultimatebb) a mod/admin can view the entire edit history of a post, and indeed, an entire thread. As I recall, you can't in ultimatebb. This way stops abuse of the edit function.

Tim

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I think this is a good point at which to remind everyone of the Ship's Second Commandment:

quote:
2. Engage brain before posting your message

Read the words you've written before you post them. Once they're out there, you can't take them back.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0